This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles
This article should also include similar measures, such as the whisker (eg - "by a whisker"). I know there are others, but they escape me at the moment. I've searched for refs for this, but found nothing so far (other than articles which use the expression, instead of discussing it). Mindmatrix16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in college in the mid-50's, we also used RCH, since it was quicker to say than red cunt hair. "Just an RCH to the left." So it was not just in the military milieu, even at that time. But I was a physics major . . . Maurice Fox (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No other color is used with this term.[14]" -- is obviously unverifiable. I've been around construction workers who used "BCH" (blonde cunt hair) to mean a tolerance even finer than an RCH. Call me treecrab (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the arboreal crustacean; we cannot declare that no other color is used - referenced or not; we have the proof right above, where someone used another colour. It is an example of common knowledge. We do not need to disprove facts, we need to prove them. I removed the statement. Chzz ► 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Hair's breadth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Whilst Wikipedia is not censored, the section on "Red cunt hair" is borderline gratuitous. The word "cunt" is obviously inflammatory, and I question whether its use 20 times on this page is necessary.
"The term is based on the concept of a pubic hair being small in diameter" - careful not to be factually incorrect as pubic hair has significantly larger diameter compared to axillary and scalp hair.[1] A more relevant analysis would be the militarised, potentially misogynist, origin of the phrase. - ηyχαμς09:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Hair's breadth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
"Until the middle of the 20th century, the highest resolution of measurement was considered to be the same order of magnitude, around 10−5 metres, as the diameter of a human hair."
This is utter codswallop and complete tosh. Issac Newton was measuring wavelenegths of light with sub-micron accuracy in the 17th century. In the 19th century Josiah Whitworth was measuring down to 25nm. I will now delete it. Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole section on 'Red cunt hair' should go - see wp:undue and wp:gratuitous. Someone's found a fringe use of the phrase, dug up sources for it, and put it in here for the lolz and the shock value. Time for it to go. Any further objections? The Land (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So there is a dispute about what prominence the phrase "red cunt hair" should have in this article. The main reason to retain it is that it's legitimate sourced content and that Wikipedia is not censored. The reason to remove some, most or all mentions of it are that it gives undue weight to a relatively unusual phrase which appears to be from US military slang, in a way which just so happens to make an innocent article substantially focused on female genitalia. From the page history it appears that this material started off as a whole article on Red cunt hair that was then AfD'd and merged onto this page. Whether that is germane to what we do now, I'm not sure. In my personal view, the principle of least astonishment is also relevant to this situation.
In the last few days there have been several versions:
The question seems unnecessarily vague. This does not seem to be any thing other than an attempt to censor wikipedia. WP:UNDUE does not apply, as no undue weight is being given to any particular viewpoint; rather, the objection appears to simply be to the word 'cunt', and the term, as somehow inappropriate or 'shocking'. A quick review of the edits edits and edit summaries will show this to be the real motivation. Obviously the 'principle of least astonishment' is completely irrelevant, as it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I read in the edit summary is a number of occasions over the last few years when people have removed that section, and have been reverted by someone (usually you!). And you may have missed the bit of WP:UNDUE where it says "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject" which is exactly what has happened here. We have a very through, well-sourced section on a relatively minor part of the article that just happens to heavily use the word "cunt". I wonder why? The Land (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been substantially edited and revised by another editor. Adding sources, text and references was a good way to resist attempts to censor and bowdlerize the encyclopaedia. You are free, of course, to add citations to the rest of the article to bring it up to the standard you now admit. 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entirely. This is a no-brainer, for me. It does not require delving deeply into arcane Wikipedia rules and convoluted reasonings. Common sense prevails, for an encyclopedia. The article is about the common English expression of a "hair's breadth." Bringing in an obscure and vulgar reference that is not in common usage does a disservice to readers. The word 'cunt' is commonly regarded as among the most obscene and offensive words in the English language.[1] As the Wikipedia article says: "The word 'cunt' is generally regarded in English-speaking countries as unsuitable for normal public discourse. It has been described as 'the most heavily tabooed word of all English words.' " [2] Thank you, The Land, for pursuing this edit. Benefac (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is by no means obscure, as evidenced by the numerous, and mainstream sources. Pynchon, for example, is one of the most highly lauded American authors of the 20th century. Whether it is vulgar, obscene, or offensive is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED - contrary to your assertions, Wikipedia policies do apply. Dlabtot (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3 I'll assume that the definition and use are sourced, assuming that, there is no reason to give a very obscure, US-specific, military slang term greater prominence than widely used English terms. If the use is not source-able, then 4. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to comment on an RfC, it is frankly, not best to assume anything. An RfC is an attempt to resolve a content dispute. One thing you should definitely not do, is take any of the assertions of the editors involved in the content dispute at face value. You should look at the conflicting arguments, and the sources, with an open and fresh viewpoint. Try not to have any preconceived notions about what is the right answer. Look at the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try to figure out how your input can contribute to making a better encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. Dlabtot (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've substantially reorganized, condensed and better sourced the entire section. The link above to "the most full-on version" is now hopelessly outdated, is irrelevant and a false choice. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that section as presently presented. Many other writers use the C word - Shakespeare, Chaucer,Lawrence (most tenderly) Joyce, Pepys,Beckett, and it was not taboo until recently. But the debate is not about the word. Is it really rather about objecting to the mention of a common type of male-bonding humour that often arises in construction, military or other dangerous work environments where men are most often at risk ?--— ⦿⨦⨀TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the section in question is kind of divorced from the actual subject of the article. It's a slang term with a similar meaning, but it doesn't seem entirely germane to the main subject of the article. It's perhaps worth mentioning briefly, but I think the section as stands gives it far too much prominence. I second Pincrete's suggestion: either (3) reduce the size of the section substantially, or, failing that, (4) cut it completely. Gimubrc (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought when I first read the article, but then I found out that RCH used to be its own article and it was decided to merge it here. That happens sometimes on Wikipedia - an article contains material only tangentially related to its subject because it's better than having a whole article for that less notable material. So I accept its inclusion here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entirely, or, failing that, reduce to a single short sentence at most. It's obscure to the point of absurdity relative to the rest of the article. Although wikipedia isn't censored, it also isn't appropriate to include or unduly emphasize things that otherwise fail to meet our inclusion criteria purely because they're titillating or to "make a stand"; the bare handful of usages of the term that people are referencing above absolutely do not meet our inclusion criteria for neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2 Then 1, 3, 4. When I read 1, I get the impression this is a more prominent term than it is. The sources convince me it's prominent enough for Wikipedia to acknowledge its existence, though, and having lots of details doesn't make me think it's an an important part of the language; if fact, it works just as strongly the other way: it looks defensive. I give no weight to the fact that "cunt" is highly offensive. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the thread seems to point to a majority of users in favour of removing or seriously cutting down the size of the section. My tally is 2 in favour keeping it, and 8 in favour of removal/reduction. Does anyone have any ideas on what a good proportion of material might be? I'm in favour of one or two sentences only; pending any further ideas I'll edit the section tomorrow. My personal suggestion is that it be cut to 1-2 sentences and merged into "other body part measurements". Gimubrc (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Step back for a moment. The article is not about a unit as it claims, but about expressions with a particular meaning. As such, it could be renamed By a hair's breadth. However, I opine that this article has transgresses WP:NOTDICT. —Quondum00:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's interesting. Two AFD discussions suggested that this be rewritten as Hair (unit of measurement). And when someone asked at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 2 how such an article could possibly be expanded I pointed to Special:Diff/288181727/288193827. 14 years later, after the above, that content was pretty much the only thing left in the article. I've separated out the — now! — non-sources for you, that you didn't tidy up. Notice that some of them are about the red cunt hair. I've also added Linnaeus for you. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: We really shouldn't be citing an Amazon affiliated marketing company as the source for the 1st sentence of the article. Pick one of the several dictionaries. And that citation of the Oxford dictionary is a right mess. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend Garner's Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, which has "hair's-breadth". Bryan A. Garner is a far better source than an Amazon affilated marketing company. Good grief! Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
